My guess is that he's talking about possible colonization targets. It's much easier to just 'mine' water at the place you've just colonized, instead of hauling it in.
Even if we manage to recreate a Neanderthal, how would we determine how 'stupid' they were? Would he receive a modern upbringing and education, without others making fun of his/her appearance before the tests were conducted?
I'm pretty sure a modern human raised in a cage by Neanderthals would end up testing as pretty stupid.
Think of all the people who start businesses that fail. Those people have to go back into the workforce. Or all of the people forced back into the workforce when their investment can no longer pay for the soaring cost of food and shelter. Sure the first few billion will be able to save up and 'retire', but what about when all of the billions following them try to do the same? If people leave the workforce, there are suddenly fewer people supplying goods and services. If the 'leisure' class never experiences natural shrinkage (death of old age), then it will keep growing until some of them are forced back into the working class. And those people will be in competition with any new workers that try to get a job. Except they'll have a house instead of paying murderous rents and some savings so they'll be able to pay at least some of their cost of living with interest.
Who's going to hire you fore the 9 to 5 job? Your competitors have centuries of experience and are willing to work for as little as you are (they don't need to hurry, they have all the time in the world to save up money).
Would there still be two sides? There wouldn't be so much of a benefit from them, since you couldn't make hidden deals with other party members, couldn't threaten them with pulling party support unless they go against their conscience,... Unlike now, where all of the consensus building is hidden inside each party, even that would have to be out in the open. So parties would either need to become Extremely homogenous (unlikely, since different states still need different approaches to the electorate), or they could fracture into numerous small parties. And if that happens, every politician will be forced into compromising or be rendered completely ineffective.
But there are also reasons why that stuff SHOULD be public knowledge. People say things one-on-one that DON'T get misinterpreted, and should be known to the millions that elected/employed the people involved. For democracy to work, the electorate needs to have at least a vague idea about things happening in the country/the world. If their leader, for instance, is willing to make a deal that hurts his country, in exchange for a foto-op with the US president, that is something the electorate should be told.
Imagine if politicians and other public servants would be monitored 24/7. No more private meetings, in which corporations promise 'contributions' in exchange for loopholes placed into laws.
Hasn't Tsvangerai been arrested every couple of years for a while now? Mugabe is not exactly know for toleration opposition, and he doesn't need much of a reason to arrest/beat up/kill his opponents. Why doesn't the US go an remove him from power? Unlike Saddam, he appears to be actively destroying his country, rather then just oppressing it.
Those differences come from size, not from a difference of government. If the USSR had stopped granting citizenship to newborns, but demanded they 'join of their own free will', would it suddenly have made it a democracy?
But it is a state, and there is a totalitarian leader. It just allows it's citizens to leave (while entering is subject to the approval of the government). Is a strong border keeping citizens in necessary for a totalitarian regime to exist?
By the way, what is so strange about deciding about dogma by a majority vote? Every dogma is set by people, either one person, a few people or a large group. Why not just vote on it. If the relevant god can inspire one person to make the 'right' choice, he can surely inspire the majority as well.
I'm saying that science is pointless if you follow most religions literally. As soon as you have a god, the result of any experiment could just be this god having fun with the scientist. Any calculation may be incorrect (god made you think 1+1=2.5 was the right result). Everything science depends on could be faults.
To have a universe where science and god can coexist, god must be completely inactive.
What happened in Egypt was very similar to what happens in the US. There were 2 fairly large unified parties (religious and military) and each of them selected a candidate. Then there were a LOT of people who hated those two options, but they weren't unified (the 'liberals'), and the result was an avalanche of different candidates. And due to this fragmentation, the candidates that the liberals supported didn't stand a chance in getting to last round of elections - they destroyed each others chances of winning. So what is needed is not just a revolution, but a good voting system.
Can't the same be said for any deistic religion, including Christianity. How can you have a universe that follows rules AND a being that is all powerful and defies any rules you can find.
And how many different vaccines would you need to stop diseases know as 'flu'? It's not just a single disease, and each year it changes enough that new vaccines are needed. So even if you vaccinate your kids against it there is a high chance that they'll just get a strain they're not immune against.
And at the end of the week you got up and went on with your life. You didn't end up crippled or dead. That's what I meant by 'annoyance' - yes you are miserable for a while, but it passes.
They should be vaccinated to the 'stable' diseases. Those that don't change year to year and are life threatening/crippling. Flu shots on the other hand are 'best guesses' each year, 'protecting against' a disease that is mostly just an annoyance rather then a real threat.
Resistance to disease is also a survival trait. If you want to preserve 'survival of the fittest' then vaccinations have to be stopped, not forced on people. Only if enough children die will humanity progress! (/sarcasm)
The trick is being just crazy enough to appear harmless. No threats or anything like that, but enough to utterly discredit yourself. Once you've done that, there is no reason to try to 'silence' you further. Anything they do against you will only draw attention, and they don't have to fear you 'revealing' whatever it was that you saw - you've already done that in the worst way possible.
That's why you should try to babble. If you look crazy enough, they won't have much of a reason to either arrest you or make you disappear. Just another conspiracy nut on the internet. If they do something to you, it would just give your words some weight.
Record yourself recounting everything you saw, then post the video to as many sites as you can. The more you can say about the event the better, don't make it short and look like you know more then you're saying. Start babbling if you can manage it.
That way, there is not much of a point silencing you, since you've already done the worst you could.
So why not have the same standard in GMO food? Since GMO is not impossible to keep out of food, then have it marked.
I would agree that setting limits to the amount of GMO food that may be present in food is not the way to go. There is no evidence that GMO is harmful to humans (yet at least). So set a maximum % (0.01% or something, just enough to cover accidental pollination) that is allowed in food without being labeled. Anything above that, and the people eating it have a right to know. And if the limit is ignored by the maker, then the people have a right to sue. Just like in cases where they find a mummified rat in their flour.
Well it will encourage hygene in food preparation. If customers see that bread X has 10 times the number of mice droppings that bread Y has, then they will reward the makers of X for their effort.
What exactly is anti-science about demanding that ingredients be listed? If anything, it will make it easier to compare the effects of modified and unmodified plants. If there are no differences or the modified plants prove to be healthier, then there is no downside for the agribusinesses.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is that he's talking about possible colonization targets. It's much easier to just 'mine' water at the place you've just colonized, instead of hauling it in.
Even if we manage to recreate a Neanderthal, how would we determine how 'stupid' they were? Would he receive a modern upbringing and education, without others making fun of his/her appearance before the tests were conducted?
I'm pretty sure a modern human raised in a cage by Neanderthals would end up testing as pretty stupid.
Think of all the people who start businesses that fail. Those people have to go back into the workforce. Or all of the people forced back into the workforce when their investment can no longer pay for the soaring cost of food and shelter. Sure the first few billion will be able to save up and 'retire', but what about when all of the billions following them try to do the same? If people leave the workforce, there are suddenly fewer people supplying goods and services. If the 'leisure' class never experiences natural shrinkage (death of old age), then it will keep growing until some of them are forced back into the working class. And those people will be in competition with any new workers that try to get a job. Except they'll have a house instead of paying murderous rents and some savings so they'll be able to pay at least some of their cost of living with interest.
Who's going to hire you fore the 9 to 5 job? Your competitors have centuries of experience and are willing to work for as little as you are (they don't need to hurry, they have all the time in the world to save up money).
Would there still be two sides? There wouldn't be so much of a benefit from them, since you couldn't make hidden deals with other party members, couldn't threaten them with pulling party support unless they go against their conscience,...
Unlike now, where all of the consensus building is hidden inside each party, even that would have to be out in the open. So parties would either need to become Extremely homogenous (unlikely, since different states still need different approaches to the electorate), or they could fracture into numerous small parties. And if that happens, every politician will be forced into compromising or be rendered completely ineffective.
But there are also reasons why that stuff SHOULD be public knowledge. People say things one-on-one that DON'T get misinterpreted, and should be known to the millions that elected/employed the people involved. For democracy to work, the electorate needs to have at least a vague idea about things happening in the country/the world. If their leader, for instance, is willing to make a deal that hurts his country, in exchange for a foto-op with the US president, that is something the electorate should be told.
Imagine if politicians and other public servants would be monitored 24/7. No more private meetings, in which corporations promise 'contributions' in exchange for loopholes placed into laws.
What the world needs if more leaks, not less.
Nerve impulses are actually pretty slow. So yes, a bullet will reach the brain before the impulses from the skin where it hits.
My guess is that accessories after the fact for murder would apply to anyone that didn't come forward.
Hasn't Tsvangerai been arrested every couple of years for a while now? Mugabe is not exactly know for toleration opposition, and he doesn't need much of a reason to arrest/beat up/kill his opponents. Why doesn't the US go an remove him from power? Unlike Saddam, he appears to be actively destroying his country, rather then just oppressing it.
Those differences come from size, not from a difference of government. If the USSR had stopped granting citizenship to newborns, but demanded they 'join of their own free will', would it suddenly have made it a democracy?
But it is a state, and there is a totalitarian leader. It just allows it's citizens to leave (while entering is subject to the approval of the government). Is a strong border keeping citizens in necessary for a totalitarian regime to exist?
By the way, what is so strange about deciding about dogma by a majority vote? Every dogma is set by people, either one person, a few people or a large group. Why not just vote on it. If the relevant god can inspire one person to make the 'right' choice, he can surely inspire the majority as well.
I'm saying that science is pointless if you follow most religions literally. As soon as you have a god, the result of any experiment could just be this god having fun with the scientist. Any calculation may be incorrect (god made you think 1+1=2.5 was the right result). Everything science depends on could be faults.
To have a universe where science and god can coexist, god must be completely inactive.
What happened in Egypt was very similar to what happens in the US.
There were 2 fairly large unified parties (religious and military) and each of them selected a candidate. Then there were a LOT of people who hated those two options, but they weren't unified (the 'liberals'), and the result was an avalanche of different candidates. And due to this fragmentation, the candidates that the liberals supported didn't stand a chance in getting to last round of elections - they destroyed each others chances of winning. So what is needed is not just a revolution, but a good voting system.
Can't the same be said for any deistic religion, including Christianity. How can you have a universe that follows rules AND a being that is all powerful and defies any rules you can find.
It's interesting that the text was written by a person who is now the ruler of a totalitarian theocracy.
And how many different vaccines would you need to stop diseases know as 'flu'? It's not just a single disease, and each year it changes enough that new vaccines are needed. So even if you vaccinate your kids against it there is a high chance that they'll just get a strain they're not immune against.
And at the end of the week you got up and went on with your life. You didn't end up crippled or dead. That's what I meant by 'annoyance' - yes you are miserable for a while, but it passes.
They should be vaccinated to the 'stable' diseases. Those that don't change year to year and are life threatening/crippling. Flu shots on the other hand are 'best guesses' each year, 'protecting against' a disease that is mostly just an annoyance rather then a real threat.
Resistance to disease is also a survival trait. If you want to preserve 'survival of the fittest' then vaccinations have to be stopped, not forced on people. Only if enough children die will humanity progress! (/sarcasm)
The trick is being just crazy enough to appear harmless. No threats or anything like that, but enough to utterly discredit yourself. Once you've done that, there is no reason to try to 'silence' you further. Anything they do against you will only draw attention, and they don't have to fear you 'revealing' whatever it was that you saw - you've already done that in the worst way possible.
That's why you should try to babble. If you look crazy enough, they won't have much of a reason to either arrest you or make you disappear. Just another conspiracy nut on the internet. If they do something to you, it would just give your words some weight.
Record yourself recounting everything you saw, then post the video to as many sites as you can. The more you can say about the event the better, don't make it short and look like you know more then you're saying. Start babbling if you can manage it.
That way, there is not much of a point silencing you, since you've already done the worst you could.
So why not have the same standard in GMO food? Since GMO is not impossible to keep out of food, then have it marked.
I would agree that setting limits to the amount of GMO food that may be present in food is not the way to go. There is no evidence that GMO is harmful to humans (yet at least). So set a maximum % (0.01% or something, just enough to cover accidental pollination) that is allowed in food without being labeled. Anything above that, and the people eating it have a right to know.
And if the limit is ignored by the maker, then the people have a right to sue. Just like in cases where they find a mummified rat in their flour.
Well it will encourage hygene in food preparation. If customers see that bread X has 10 times the number of mice droppings that bread Y has, then they will reward the makers of X for their effort.
What exactly is anti-science about demanding that ingredients be listed? If anything, it will make it easier to compare the effects of modified and unmodified plants. If there are no differences or the modified plants prove to be healthier, then there is no downside for the agribusinesses.